CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 novembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 91 November 2006 Zaytsev v. Russia - 22644/02 Judgment 16.11.2006 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Loss of victim status following supervisory review as a result of which the applicant was notified of the appeal hearing and his conviction set aside: no violation   Facts : In 2001 a town court convicted the applicant, a school teacher, of ill-treating his pupils and sentenced him to 18 months' suspended imprisonment. He appealed unsuccessfully against the judgment. He had not been present at the appeal hearing and alleged that he had not been notified thereof. In 2005 the Presidium of the regional court, having examined the case under the supervisory review procedure, quashed the appeal court's judgment and remitted the case on appeal. It found that the examination of the applicant's appeal in his absence had violated his defence rights. Subsequently, the regional court set aside the judgment of 2001 and terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant as the statutory time-limits had expired. The applicant had been notified of the hearing, but did not appear. Law : The Presidium of the regional court quashed the applicant's final conviction on the ground that the examination of his appeal in his absence, without his having been duly notified of the hearing, had violated his right to a defence. Furthermore, the Presidium remitted the applicant's case for a new appeal examination and this time the applicant was duly notified of the appeal hearing. The applicant, therefore, ceased to be a victim of this alleged violation of his rights under Article   6. The Court also found no indication of any infringement of the applicant's defence rights or of the principle of equality of arms as his original conviction was eventually set aside. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes